9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 465 - HC - Income TaxApplying Section 11 in determining the surplus income which would be subject to tax - assessment under Section 143(3) - Held that - These issues were not a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer in the earlier Assessment order dated 16th March, 1988 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the issues now raised by the appellant-Assessee before the CIT (Appeals) could never have been raised by the appellant while challenging the earlier order. No wrong with a remedy. The purpose and object of the orders passed under the Act is to ensure that the Act is properly implemented and the Assessee is not burdened with tax which under the law, it is not obliged to pay. Thus, the finding in the impugned order dated 2nd September, 2004 in the peculiar facts of this case, that an appeal from an order giving effect to the grounds which were not raised in the earlier Appeal filed from the order dated 16th March, 1988 of the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act is not correct. Substantial question of law is answered in the Affirmative i.e. in favour of the appellant-assesee and against the respondent-Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act regarding the benefit of Section 11 of the Act for Assessment Year 1985-86. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appellant, a company promoting export of cloth and yarn, consistently claimed the benefit of income exclusion under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income-Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the benefit of Section 11 due to a bank account in West Germany, treating it as an investment, leading to taxation under business income. 2. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (CIT) (Appeals) allowed the appellant's appeal, stating that the bank account did not constitute an investment under Section 11, directing the Assessing Officer to re-assess and grant the benefit of Section 11. 3. The Assessing Officer, while giving effect to the CIT (Appeals) order, failed to consider all expenses, resulting in taxable surplus income even after applying Section 11. 4. Subsequently, the CIT (Appeals) set aside the Assessing Officer's order for not giving a proper hearing and incorrect application of Section 11, directing a rework of figures to determine taxable surplus income. 5. Both the Revenue and the appellant appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the CIT (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction by deciding issues not raised in the initial appeal against the Assessing Officer's order. 6. The High Court noted that the original appeal was solely about the denial of Section 11 benefit, which was granted by the CIT (Appeals) but not correctly implemented by the Assessing Officer due to errors in applying Section 11, leading to the appeal to ensure proper implementation of the CIT (Appeals) order. 7. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the CIT (Appeals) order based on issues not raised in the initial appeal, emphasizing that the purpose of orders under the Act is to prevent unjust taxation and ensure proper implementation of the law, ruling in favor of the appellant. 8. The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal with no costs imposed. This detailed analysis outlines the progression of the case, highlighting the issues related to the benefit of Section 11 of the Income-Tax Act for the Assessment Year 1985-86 and the subsequent legal actions taken by the parties involved.
|
